Saturday, 27 April 2013
by Nick Farrell
Shakuntala Devi, an Indian mathematical wizard known as "the human computer" has died in Bangalore, India. She was 83.
Devi was dubbed the human computer because in 1977 she was able to beat a Univac computer in calculating the extracted 23rd root of a 201-digit number in 50 seconds. The Univac took 62 seconds.
In 1980, she correctly multiplied two 13-digit numbers in only 28 seconds at the Imperial College in London. This included the time to recite the 26-digit answer and earned her a place in the Guinness Book of World Records.
According to Science, Devi's dad was a trapeze artist and lion tamer in a circus and at age three she discovered that she was a mathematical prodigy with an uncanny ability to memorise numbers when she was playing cards with him. At age five she had become an expert at solving math problems.
She started out demonstrating her math skills at the circus, and later in road shows arranged by her father.
Soon she was making more money for the family than her father and his lions.
She toured Europe in 1950. The BBC thought they had caught her out when she came up with an answer to a problem which was different from what was on their card. It turned out they were wrong. The same problem happened in Rome when university boffins failed to add up their numbers correctly.
According to the New York Times, in 1976 she could give you the cube root of 188,132,517 in the time it took to ask the question. If you gave her any date in the last century, she would tell you what day of the week it fell on.
In a 1990 journal article about Devi, Arthur Jensen, a researcher on human intelligence at the University of California, Berkeley, said that to her the manipulation of numbers was like a native language.
Curiously for the rationalists, she was also a famous astrologer and writer turning out novels and cookbooks.
Source: Techeye
If you want to see why the public approval rating of Congress is down in the sub-arctic range — an icy 15 percent by last count — all you have to do is take a quick look at how the House and Senate pay worship at the altar of corporations, banks and other special interests at the expense of public aspirations and need.
Traditionally, political scientists have taught their students that there are two schools of thought about how a legislator should get the job done. One is to vote yay or nay on a bill by following the will of his or her constituency, doing what they say they want. The other is to represent them as that legislator sees fit, acting in the best interest of the voters — whether they like it or not.
But our current Congress — as cranky and inert as an obnoxious old uncle who refuses to move from his easy chair — never went to either of those schools. Its members rarely have the voter in mind at all, unless, of course, that voter’s a cash-laden heavy hitter with the clout to keep an incumbent on the leash and comfortably in office.
How else to explain a Congress that still adamantly refuses to do anything, despite some 90 percent of the American public being in favor of background checks for gun purchases and a healthy majority favoring other gun control measures? Last week, they ignored the pleas of Newtown families and the siege of violence in Boston and yielded once again to the fanatical rants of Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association. In just the first three months of this year, as it shoved back against the renewed push for controls, the NRA spent a record $800,000 keeping congressional members in line.
And how else to explain why corporate tax breaks have more than doubled in the last 25 years? Or why the Senate and House recently gutted the STOCK Act requiring disclosure of financial transactions by White House staff and members of Congress and their staffs and prohibiting them from insider trading? It was passed into law and signed by President Obama last year — an election year — with great self-congratulation from all involved. But fears allegedly arose that there might be security risks for some in the executive branch if their financial business was known.
That concern was examined by the Columbia Journalism Review, which “consulted four cybersecurity experts from leading think tanks and private security consultancies. Each came to the same conclusion: that Congress’s rationale for scrapping the financial disclosure rules was bogus.” Nonetheless, the House and Senate leapt at the opportunity to eviscerate key sections of the STOCK Act when almost no one was watching. And the president signed it.
Then there’s the fertilizer plant in West, Texas, where last week, fire and explosion killed at least 15 — 11 of them first responders — and injured more than 200. The Reuters news service reported that the factory “had last year been storing 1,350 times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Why wasn’t Homeland Security on top of this? For one thing, the company was required to tell the department — and didn’t. For another, budget cuts demanded by Congress mean there aren’t enough personnel available for spot inspections.
Same goes for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — OSHA. The plant hadn’t been inspected in nearly thirty years, and there are so few OSHA inspectors in Texas that it would take 98 years for them to take a look at each workplace in the state once. According to the non-partisan reform group Public Campaign, “Already only able to conduct 40,000 workplace inspections a year in a country with seven million worksites, OSHA will see its budget cut by an additional 8.2 percent this year on account of the sequester.”
Congress quietly acquiesces as the regulations meant for our safety are whittled away.
Twelve members of Congress want to make a bad situation even worse, sponsoring the industry-backed General Duty Clarification Act; its banal title hiding that, as reported by Tim Murphy at Mother Jones magazine, “The bill is designed to sap the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate safety and security at major chemical sites, as prescribed by the Clean Air Act.”
“‘We call that the Koch brothers bill,’ Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind says, because the bill’s sponsor, GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo, represents the conservative megadonors’ home city of Wichita, Kansas. (The sponsor of the sister legislation in the senate, GOP Sen. Pat Roberts, represents the Kochs’ home state of Kansas.) The brothers have huge investments in fertilizer production, and Hind thinks they’ll ultimately get what they want, whether or not the bill becomes law.”
No coincidence, perhaps, that the sponsors of the House bill and Senator Roberts, Public Campaign reports, “have collectively taken over $670,000 from the chemical manufacturing industry over their careers.” Since 2011, the industry has spent $85.1 million lobbying.
Congress quietly acquiesces as the regulations meant for our safety are whittled away. The progressive website ThinkProgress notes that even though food related infections — which kill 3,000 and sicken 48 million Americans each year — rose last year, congressional and White House budget cuts may mean up to 600 fewer food inspectors at meat and poultry plants, leaving it up to the industry to police itself. That rot you’re smelling isn’t just some bad hamburger.
It’s true that ninety-two percent of Americans say, yes, reducing the deficit and spending cuts are important, but all on their own the people have figured out cuts that make more sense than anything Congress and its corporate puppeteers want to hear about. Mattea Kramer, research director at the National Priorities Project, says “a strong majority” — 73 percent of us — want a reduced reliance on fossil fuels, and fifty percent want something done about climate change. A carbon tax would help with both, and raise an estimated $125 billion every year. Response from Congress: crickets.
Fifty eight percent of the U.S., according to Gallup, wants “major cuts in military and defense spending,” the average American favoring a reduction of 18 percent. Good luck — the Pentagon and defense contractors already are bellowing about the puny 1.6 percent reduction called for in the new White House budget.
Mattea Kramer writes that Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 280 organizations, has “identified 10-year budgetary savings of $2.8 trillion simply by limiting or eliminating a plethora of high-income and corporate tax loopholes.” Congress is busily revising the tax code as we speak but how many of those loopholes and other perks like credits and deductions do you bet will go away?
Not many if the lobbying industry has anything to do with it. The House Ways and Means Committee has eleven working groups considering rewrites and according to the congressional newspaper The Hill, they’re quietly meeting with lobbyists and other interests – “deep pocketed players” — all the time. Keep your eye on who’s donating to the re-election campaigns of each of those working group members as we move toward the midterms next year.
Over on the Senate side, The New York Times recently reported those seeking to cut taxes and hang onto their incentives as the code is revised have found one strategy that seems to work – hire firms that employ former aides to Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The Times analyzed lobbying files and found at least 28 of his ex-staffers “have lobbied on tax issues during the Obama administration – more than any other current member of Congress.”
Reporter Eric Lipton writes, “… Many of those lobbyists have already saved their clients millions — in some cases, billions — of dollars after Mr. Baucus backed their requests to extend certain corporate tax perks, provisions that were adopted as part of the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in January.”
Senator Baucus’ spokesman was quick to say that his boss regularly rejects requests as well, but the fact is, he added, “Oftentimes good policy can indirectly benefit someone. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.”
Just so. Which is why, for example, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader who likes to complain about the current tax code’s four million words of red tape — seven times the length of War and Peace — will doubtless support tightening loopholes, right? A January report from Public Campaign Action Fund, found that, “Companies that lobbied against bringing jobs back to America and ending tax breaks for offshoring have given McConnell one million dollars to win his elections and look out for their interests.” In other words: don’t hold your breath.
No wonder the biggest newspaper in his native Kentucky said in a recent editorial that McConnell “has long ceased to serve the state, instead serving the corporate interests he counts on for contributions and leading obstruction that continues to plague Congress.”
Sadly, such is the way of Washington, home of the scheme and the fraud, where the unbreakable chain between money and governance weighs heavy and drags us ever deeper into a sinkhole of inaction and mediocrity.
The plant also filed a “worst-case release scenario” report with the EPA and local officials stating there was no risk of a fire or an explosion. The scenario described an anhydrous ammonia leak that wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Did any of these agencies fail to inspect the plant when they should have?
It’s unclear. OSHA conducted the last full safety inspection of the plant in 1985. “Since then regulators from other agencies have been inside the plant, but they looked only at certain aspects of plant operations, such as whether the facility was abiding by labeling rules when packaging its fertilizer for sale.”
You can view the full OSHA report here.
It certainly doesn't look like a plane crashed in Shanksville -- at least not the way it was reported to us by the Cheney/Bush government. Where is the wreckage? Where are ANY identifiable pieces of a huge Boeing plane? Same kinds of questions arise when you consider the small hole in the Pentagon and the fact that there was no plane wreckage/parts there, either. And why did Building 7 "collapse"? (was taken down the afternoon of 9-11). Questions we have MANY. Answers we have FEW. And that's the way it will stay if we are depending on any truth coming from the government. About ANYthing. View the following new footage
Some excellent common-sense suggestions for women are given in this article:
DR. CHRISTIANE NORTHRUP'S TOP TEN TIPS FOR BREAST HEALTH
By Dr. Mercola
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the age of 40-55, and the high prevalence has spawned a very lucrative industry; from mammography and other dangerous or invasive testing methods, to “preventive” double mastectomies and cancer drugs.
Much effort is placed on trying to detect cancer at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, the conventional recommendation to get regular mammograms has shown to be more harmful than helpful, as research shows 10 times as many women are harmed in some way compared to those whose lives are spared by annual mammograms.
Is there a better way to prevent becoming a statistic?
Yes, there is, says Dr. Christiane Northrup, a practicing physician and ob-gyn specialist who has dedicated a good portion of her life to helping women take control of their health.
Dr. Northrup is also a New York Times best-seller author, and is a prominent speaker on natural health issues, especially those related to women, for whom breast health is a major issue.
Having grown up in a health-conscious family where her father was a holistic dentist and her paternal aunt and uncle were conventional medical doctors, she got a chance to see the difference between the two philosophies first-hand.
Her father instilled in her the idea that “It’s not about living forever; it’s about living well while you’re here,” and in order to do that, your focus needs to be on living a healthy lifestyle, opposed to searching for and spending your life trying to treat diseases as they crop up.
Conventional medicine, with its focus on diagnosis and treatment of disease, has the side effect of turning everything into a “condition” that needs treatment. According to Dr. Northrup:
“[I]n my ob-gyn residency, I saw a couple of things. One, a woman’s body was treated as a disease waiting to happen. Pregnancy was a disease. A normal labor and birth was considered a retrospective diagnosis... Breasts are treated as two pre-malignant lesions sitting on your chest. The whole discussion of women’s health is, 'What can go wrong?'
...[W]e think that women’s health is disease screening. We think that women’s health is pap smears [and] mammograms... [But] that’s not feeding cells the nutrients, the thoughts, the emotions that they need in order to continue to reproduce themselves in a healthy way.
The body replaces itself totally every seven years. It will replace itself in a healthy way, depending upon what you’re feeding it on all levels.”
I’ve taken a strong, and in some cases controversial position on mammography, and I’m particularly leery of the newer 3D tomosynthesis mammography, which is touted as being so much better but in reality may simply compound the same problems associated with regular mammography, as it increases the amount of harmful (and cancer-causing) ionizing radiation you’re exposed to.
Dr. Northrup agrees, calling 3D tomosynthesis “a better mouse trap.”
“I keep going back to the work of Gilbert Welch from Dartmouth. I believe it is the most important paper to come out about breast cancer almost in my entire career,” she says. “Gil wrote a book called 'Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why.' That was in 2004. Now he comes out with a paper that has everyone riled up. It’s called 'The Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast Cancer incidents'1 [published in the prestigious medical journal New England Journal of Medicine]. He says: 'With the assumption of a constant underlying disease burden, only eight of the 122 additional early-stage cancers diagnosed were expected to progress to advanced disease.
After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed.'”
So in 30-year’s time, an estimated 1.3 million women were diagnosed with what amounts to “ductal carcinoma in situ,” also known as stage zero cancer—or cancer you may die with but not from. It’s essentially harmless...
“[Gilbert Welch] pointed to a study [from] way back, of women who died in car accidents in their 40s. They sectioned their breast tissues and found that 40 percent of them – this is normal healthy women dying in car accidents – had evidence of ductal carcinoma in situ that was never going to go anywhere. This is the big dilemma,” Dr. Northrup says.
Another important study was published in November 2008 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.2 This study followed more than 200,000 Norwegian women between the ages of 50 and 64 over two consecutive six-year periods. Half received regular periodic breast exams or regular mammograms, while the others had no regular breast cancer screenings. The study reported that those women receiving regular screenings had 22 percent more incidence of breast cancer.
The researchers, as well as another team of doctors who did not take part in the study but who analyzed the data, concluded that the women who didn’t have regular breast cancer screenings probably had the same number of occurrences of breast cancer, but that their bodies had somehow corrected the abnormalities on their own.
“Of course, this makes complete sense, because your immune system is set up to recognize and destroy cancers in the right environment,” Dr. Northrup says. “The right environment, of course, is enough sleep, a low-glycemic diet, enough vitamin D, and also regular handling of resentments, anger, grief, and loss.
I think what I want women to know is that your breasts are not two potentially pre-malignant lesions sitting on your chest. The problem with our paradigm – whether it’s tomosynthesis or mammograms – is that it will find things that were never going to go anywhere. And then you’re out there wearing a pink ribbon and running for the cure, thinking that you were going to die of breast cancer when you never will, and never would.”
Dr. Northrup is a firm believer in the innate wisdom of the body, and you can apply a certain measure of symbolism to various body parts. Your breasts, for example, were designed to feed and nurture your children, as well as for pleasure. According to Dr. Northrup, women who tend to be most at risk for breast cancer are those who have difficulty nurturing themselves and receiving pleasure...
“The first thing you need to understand is you have to learn how to receive – how to receive rest, how to receive pleasure – and that’s going to be the primary intervention that I would do. This is the biggest stumbling block for women: we’re so afraid of appearing selfish.
Here’s what we do to get the nutrients of pleasure and receiving that we all need for optimal brain health – the beta-endorphin or the feel-good chemicals in the brain: We import it through alcohol and sugar, when we can import it directly through self-love, meditation, exercise, and good sex, which you can do with yourself,” she says.
Bernie Siegel, a pediatric surgeon from Yale, was co-president of the American Holistic Medical Association with Dr. Northrup in the early ‘90s.
“Bernie used to say, 'I have come to see that the fundamental problem most patients face is the inability to love themselves,'”she says. “I remember thinking, 'God, Bernie, that seems pretty simple to me.' And you know what? He’s right. The older you get, the more you realize this.”
So how do you love yourself when you feel unlovable? Dr. Northrup suggests a paradoxical strategy she picked up from Gay Hendricks, who is a pioneer in relationship transformation and body-mind therapies. Simply meditate on, or use the mantra:
“I don’t feel lovable, so I’m going to love myself for that.”
Another powerful strategy that we use in my practice is a form of energy psychology known as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which also uses the affirmation to love and accept yourself unconditionally. This really is a powerful healing affirmation that can have a profound influence. I’ve worked with tens of thousands of patients, and it can seem like nothing short of magic when unconditional love and self acceptance is integrated into a person’s neurology. In many cases, it can resolve physical symptoms quite rapidly.
According to Dr. Northrup, part of this healing is due to the increase in nitric oxide, which is found at high levels in your nasal pharynx. This is one of the reasons why you should breathe through your nose (opposed to mouth-breathing).
“Think about what happens when you do that. You get an increase in nitric oxide in every blood vessel in the body. And remember: a capillary is a micron away from every cell in the body. Nitric oxide is produced by the endothelial lining of every blood vessel in the body. It’s increased in all situations of health: self-love, aerobic exercise, antioxidant, vitamins, eating your vegetables. Nitric oxide is the molecule of life force. It also balances all the neurotransmitters instantaneously – serotonin, dopamine, beta endorphin, and all those things for which one in 10 Americans is on an antidepressant.”
In this interview, Dr. Northrup shares her top 10 tips for women’s health:
- Get enough sleep: Proper sleep is essential for optimal health, and it helps metabolize stress hormones better than any other known entity.
- Meditate for at least 3-12 minutes each day, to calm and soothe your mind.
- Begin your day with a positive affirmation.
- Exercise regularly. Ideally, aim for a comprehensive program that includes high intensity exercises and strength training along with core-building exercises and stretching.
- Breathe properly. When you breathe in and out fully through your nose, you activate your parasympathetic rest-and-restore nervous system, which expands the lower lobes of your lungs, and therefore engages the vagus nerves.
“Relax the back of your throat. So many women have thyroid problems – it’s from chronic tension here; because you’re pretty sure your feminine voice isn’t going to be heard. It hasn’t been heard for 5,000 years. You’re not alone. But it’s being heard now,” she says.
- Practice self love and unconditional acceptance. Dr. Northrup suggests looking at yourself in the mirror at least once a day, and saying: “I love you. I really love you.”
“After 21 days, something will happen to you. You’ll see a part of you that looks back at you, and you begin to believe it. “I love you. I really love you.”
- Optimize your vitamin D levels. Get your vitamin D level checked. Ideally, you’ll want your levels within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml. According to Dr. Northrup:
“Sunlight is not the enemy. It’s lack of antioxidants in your diet that is the enemy. Natural light is a lovely source of vitamin D; you can’t overdose. But many people – to get their levels of vitamin D into optimal – are going to need 5,000 to 10, 000 international units per day. So, vitamin D is important. You can get your level drawn through MyMedLab.com without a doctor’s prescription.”
Just remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D, you also need to boost your intake of vitamin K2. For more information on this, please see my previous article, What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium.
- Cultivate an active social life; enjoy some face-to-face time with like-minded people.
- Epsom salt baths (20 minutes, three times per week) are a simple, inexpensive way to get magnesium into your body.
- Keep a gratitude journal. Each night, before you go to bed, write down five things that you are grateful for, or five things that brought you pleasure.
“Remember: every emotion is associated with a biochemical reality in your body. So, you want to bring in the emotions of generosity, pleasure, receiving, and open-heartedness. The same things that create heart health create breast health.”
Naturally, I couldn’t discuss women’s breast health with Dr. Northrup without getting her take on breast self-examinations. Surprisingly, research has shown that self-examinations may be overrated, much like mammograms, in terms of saving women’s lives.
“There was a huge study done in China that showed that teaching women how to examine their breasts did not decrease their mortality at all,” she says. “In fact, all it did was increase the number of biopsies for benign disease. So, there’s no data that breast self-exam helps with anything.”
That said, she still encourages and recommends a monthly or weekly “self-love breast massage,” but not to specifically look for anything, or with the expectation of finding something wrong. Instead, she suggests just gently and lovingly massaging your breasts and up under your armpit, where the lymph nodes are located, while taking your Epsom salt bath. The best time to do it is just after your period, when you have the least amount of hormonal stimulation.
“Massage this with love. You’re not looking for anything,” she says. “The average woman will find something. We know that breast self-exam, or just a woman finding something because she knows her breasts, is just as good as all of these other screenings for finding the fast-growing tumors. See, the problem with screening is it finds the slow-growing ones that may regress or wouldn’t go anywhere anyway.
So, for a part of your health, you want to start a practice of bringing your breast home to your chest. Get to know them in health lovingly. Don’t use your fingertips, by the way. Use your palm. Otherwise, you’re going to feel every little gland and freak out. And then if you do find that you have what’s called a fibrocystic disease where your breasts get tender, start eating some kelp tablets, because the iodine really helps that in a huge way.”
The advice offered in this article is that of Dr. Northrup. There are many additional strategies to help prevent cancer, and breast cancer in particular. For a list of my top tips, please see this previous article.
One of the most important lifestyle changes you can make is to adopt a low-glycemic diet and avoid sugar in all its forms, especially fructose. Excess sugar increases insulin which, along with high blood sugar, changes the way estrogen is metabolized in your body. Elevated estrogen levels is a risk factor for breast cancer, so you’ll want to avoid estrogen dominance. If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
I agree with Dr. Northrup that health is ultimately about living well while you’re alive, and placing too much effort on detecting cancer can turn you into a patient when you’re not actually ill... Cancer screening is not prevention, and while early detection of cancer is desirable, the conventional recommendation to get regular mammograms has shown to be more harmful than helpful. Remember, 10 times as many women are harmed in some way compared to those whose lives are spared by annual mammograms.
So educate yourself about your options, and embrace your body, your life, and your health; focusing on living healthy, instead of searching for that elusive “something” that might one day kill you.
...Full Moon Over New Zealand
Astounding! A photographer captured what is one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen filmed.
It is a 3 minute video clip of the full moon rising over Wellington, New
Zealand. It was shot, on a calm summer evening, as people gathered on the
Mt. Victoria Lookout point to watch the moon rise.
This stunning video is one single real-time shot, with no manipulation
whatsoever. The camera was placed on a hillside over 2 kilometers from the
Lookout point, and was shot with the equivalent of a 1300mm lens.
The amount of planning, trial and error, and luck that went into this are
mind blowing. He has been trying to capture this for over a year with many
failed attempts. But On January 28 of this year it seems everything was on his side, and
it all came together in a way even he couldn't have hoped.
You can't say enough good things about this video - from the
magnitude of the visuals, to the intimate stories playing out with the
people, to the sheer humbling nature of seeing the awe-inspiring reality of
this giant rock in the sky that we so often don't stop to appreciate.
Watch this on the BIGGEST screen you have
- don't waste it on an iphone screen.
https://vimeo.com/58385453
Nearly every woman age 40 and older continues to be told by their primary care physician, their gynecologist, the media, self-proclaimed advocacy groups, and even their medical insurance carrier, “get your annual mammogram!” despite the fact that nearly every recent authoritative study concludes that women should know all of the facts before agreeing to a mammogram screening. Yet nearly all health care professionals insist on mammograms. If a woman dare refuse, she may be chastised or worse, threatened. These efforts have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion, “I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get a mammogram.” Women need to stop this runaway train, not only for their sake, but for the sake of their daughters.
In November 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Dr Archie Bleyer, MD from The Oregon Health Sciences Center, and his co-author, Dr H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H., from Dartmouth, challenging the validity of mammogram screenings and concluded that mammograms have little to no influence in the reduction of the number of women who ultimately die of breast cancer.
More women are refusing mammograms. This is reflected in the dramatic decline of 4.3 percent in 2010. Previously, mammography use had increased annually by 1 percent between 2005 and 2009. Mammograms:
- Are incorrect 80 percent of the time (providing a false negative or false positive)
- Require repeated ionized radiation that can cause cancer
- Use compression, which can damage breast tissue or potentially spread cancer
- Are not effective for up to 50 percent of women (women with dense breasts or implants)
- Can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of non-invasive cancers
- Can lead to the disturbing practice of “preventative” double mastectomies
Christopher Fisher·26 videos Strange sounds above Vancouver BC 2012 "Note to the sound nazi's" This video was shot on a canon 7d and a 2nd system h4n STEREO recorder.
9:47 Strange sounds all over the world Jerusalem, houston, New York, Belgium, ect..by David Vose 
Posts
All Comments
